HC Upholds Medical Board Opinion in Agni Veer Recruitment Case

Case Details: Shivansh Singh vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 847 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Vivek Kumar Birla & Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ.
Amal Darsingh for the Appellant.
Prem Narayan Rai for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant applied for the post of Agni Veer (General Duty) in the Indian Army, cleared the preliminary written examination and physical test, and was medically examined, where he was declared unfit due to Onychomycosis in the right index finger; on review at Military Hospital, Prayagraj, he was again declared unfit.

Thereafter, he obtained a subsequent medical report from respondent no.4, a dermatology specialist at a government medical college, opining that Onychomycosis is non-communicable and curable, and sought a fresh Medical Board on that basis.

In a writ petition seeking a direction to constitute a Medical Board for re-examination, the Single Judge called for a personal affidavit from respondent no. 4, who also appeared. Respondent-authorities produced instructions showing that Army doctors (MO) had declared appellant unfit, Senior Medical Officer (SRMO) had confirmed disability on review, and a specialist at Military Hospital, Prayagraj, had also declared him unfit; writ petition was dismissed.

It was noted that since the recruitment process had been carried out as per the prescribed procedure whereunder medical fitness of candidates had been tested by a duly constituted Medical Board, report of Medical Board was not to be normally interfered with, and that too, solely on basis of a claim sought to be set up by appellant on basis of some subsequent report procured by him from another medical practitioner.

High Court Held

The High Court held that a claim based on a subsequent medical report produced by the candidate would not override or set aside the expert opinion of the Medical Board set up under the procedure for a recruitment process. Thus, the appeal against the Single Judge’s order was to be dismissed.